Seòmar agus comataidhean

That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank our witnesses for their evidence and their considered responses to our questions.

We will suspend the meeting briefly.

Our second agenda item is consideration of a piece of subordinate legislation. This instrument is subject to the negative procedure. I refer members to paper 3 and to pages 21 to 24 in our papers pack.

Does any member wish to raise any issues regarding the instrument?

Okay. I would like to ask how the private storage aid scheme links in with the previous hardship scheme—which ran for, I think, three weeks—and whether the Government has any plans to reintroduce that scheme.

I would also like to raise the issue of potential fraud when funding is provided to store carcases. What checks are in place to ensure that carcases are not processed early and released back into the food chain, with the use of butchering facilities outwith Scotland? We should also find out how much funding is available in total through the scheme.

As there are no more comments, are members content to note the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. We will now move on to questions from members, for which we have approximately 80 minutes.

I will kick off. How has your role changed as awareness of the climate and the nature emergencies has increased? What changes have been made to your organisations in recent years to enhance your responses to those challenges? Are there any barriers to making those changes?

That concludes today’s business. At next week’s meeting, we will take further evidence on the climate and nature emergencies and consider subordinate legislation.

I thank everyone for attending.

How do you get the balance? Most people accept that an increase in forestation will help us get to net zero, but where do we find the balance between a potential monoculture of Sitka spruce and having the right tree in the right place? What work is being done to ensure that that is not just a phrase that people like to throw about so that we actually see the best trees for carbon sequestration and biodiversity being planted, and so that we do not consider only the commercial arguments for planting as many Sitka spruce as possible? That question is for David Signorini and then Graham Neville.

Graham, do you think that the balance is right with regard to the UK forestry standard and Scottish Forestry’s ambitions? Do they conflict with NatureScot’s main objective of protecting biodiversity? Are they getting it right?

Ariane Burgess has questions about priorities and on-going work programmes.

That might be a good question for Graham Neville to start with.